Rivalry in eye of beholder

What constitutes a rivalry?

Is it geographic? Is it historic? Is it something else?

A couple of notes on this on-line column the past few days got me thinking about the nature of rivalries, and what part of our nature feeds them.

That’s how I started a SportsLink post Saturday, the day the Cougars upset Oregon and Boise State powered past the Vandals.

Rivalries intrigue me because, more than any other element, they speak to the heart of the sports fan.

And I wondered if both games were true rivalries.

Let’s start on the west side of the state line.

It’s obvious the students and alums of the four Pac-10 Northwest schools don’t like each other much – that’s partly geography, partly history – so each time they get together on the football field, the games have special significance.

There are the same-state rivalries that will never slack, the Apple Cup and the (un)Civil War, but what about the other matchups?

The Oregon game with the University of Washington has taken on such consequence, it threatens to eclipse the Civil War for Duck fans. But has it? Only you Oregon alums can really tell.

As for WSU, I’m sure true Cougars don’t like seeing the spots of yellow in the student section like on Saturday. It makes it that much easier to wear Reeboks.

But, surprisingly, neither the Oregon team nor its fans seem to respond the same way to WSU – at least this year. Sure there was passion, but it wasn’t as close to the surface as it usually is on Husky or Beaver week.

So was Saturday’s game part of a rivalry or just another contest in a 12-game season?

What about the game in Moscow?

Last week, SportsLink featured a link to a story in the Boise State student newspaper that posited the Vandals weren’t the Broncos’ rivals. They just weren’t good enough to be.

Then UI gave the nationally-ranked Broncos everything they could have wanted, rivalry game or not.

But the result brings up an important part of a rivalry: The games need to be competitive.

One team can’t win 22 of 23 games and still think of the opponent as a rival. Rivals are just that, someone who competes with you for something – in football, for a win or a league title or a national championship. If only one of the two compete for those things, it’s not a rivalry.

Which makes UI’s ability to keep Saturday’s game in doubt for so long an important step in rebuilding a rivalry that’s waned as the two Idaho schools have followed different paths to the WAC.

So is the UI-BSU rivalry now on sound footing?

Another type of football rivalry that intrigues me is the one between regions, most notably the South – as represented in the national polls by the Southeastern Conference – and the West Coast – the honor of which is currently being upheld by USC.

Talk-radio is overwhelmed right now with the discussion about whether a one-loss SEC team should be in the national championship game over an undefeated school. The talk centers around the Big East’s three powers: West Virginia, Louisville and Rutgers.

But you know if USC rides through the rest of the season unbeaten, either Auburn, Florida or Tennessee – whichever one survives the SEC gauntlet with only one defeat – will be trumpeted as worthier of the BCS championship than USC. It’s happened before, it will happen again.

So just what is behind the rivalries between regions?

If you’re wondering why this column is full of so many questions, it’s because I want your answers. On SportsLink you’ll find a post devoted to your comments on the questions posed here. Just click on the comments link and give me your answers. I’m interested in reading what you have to write.